Case Title:
GUNJAN AS GUARDIAN OF PIHU& Ors. V. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Date of Order:
22nd August 2024
Bench:
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma
Parties:
Petitioner: GUNJAN AS GUARDIAN OF PIHU& Ors
Respondent: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Subject:
This case concerns eight petitions submitted by ten petitioners, all of whom are facing similar challenges in their application for admittance under the Economically Weaker Section/Disadvantaged Group (EWS/DG) category, which is their entitlement under the Right to Education Act. Their shared goal is to ensure that private unaided schools provide a high-quality education and provide equitable treatment.
The writ petitions were submitted under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution on behalf of economically marginalized youth who were denied admission to the Senior Wing of Holy Innocents Public School. The school's refusal was predicated on the assertion that its Junior and Senior Wings are separate organizations, and the Directorate of Education's allocation for the Junior Wing does not extend to the Senior Wing.
Important Provisions
Right To Education Act
- Right of children to free and compulsory education till completion of elementary education in a neighbourhood school.
- It clarifies that ‘compulsory education’ means obligation of the appropriate government to provide free elementary education and ensure compulsory admission, attendance and completion of elementary education to every child in the six to fourteen age group. ‘Free’ means that no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education.
- It makes provisions for a non-admitted child to be admitted to an age appropriate class.
- It specifies the duties and responsibilities of appropriate Governments, local authority and parents in providing free and compulsory education, and sharing of financial and other responsibilities between the Central and State Governments.
- It lays down the norms and standards relating inter alia to Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTRs), buildings and infrastructure, school-working days, teacher-working hours.
- It provides for rational deployment of teachers by ensuring that the specified pupil teacher ratio is maintained for each school, rather than just as an average for the State or District or Block, thus ensuring that there is no urban-rural imbalance in teacher postings. It also provides for prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational work, other than decennial census, elections to local authority, state legislatures and parliament, and disaster relief.
- It provides for appointment of appropriately trained teachers, i.e. teachers with the requisite entry and academic qualifications.
- It prohibits (a) physical punishment and mental harassment; (b) screening procedures for admission of children; (c) capitation fee; (d) private tuition by teachers and (e) running of schools without recognition,
- It provides for development of curriculum in consonance with the values enshrined in the Constitution, and which would ensure the all-round development of the child, building on the child’s knowledge, potentiality and talent and making the child free of fear, trauma and anxiety through a system of child friendly and child centred learning.
Article 21A- The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.
Article 226- (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,
makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
Article 14- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Article 15- (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.
(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,—
(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this article and article 16, “economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.
Facts
The petitioners, who are all underage children, had submitted applications, through their parents or guardians, to the Department of Education with the aim of obtaining admission in entry level classes such as Nursery/Pre-School or KG/Pre-Primary, under the EWS/DG category.
Following the computerized lottery conducted by the DOE, these students were assigned seats in the Junior Wing of Holy Innocents Public School, situated in Janakpuri, Delhi, either in 2022 or 2023. Following the allocation made by the DoE, these youngsters were granted entrance to the mentioned school and successfully finished their education in the first grade levels.
However, the obstacle to the ongoing education of these children emerged when they were advanced to Class 1 after successfully finishing their KG/Pre-Primary classes. In order to facilitate this transition, they attended the Senior Wing of Holy Innocents Public School, which is located in Vikaspuri.
Nevertheless, the Senior Wing of the School declined to admit these children to Class 1. The reason given was that according to the computerized lottery conducted by the Department of Education (DoE), these children were assigned to the Junior Wing of the School, which has a different unique School ID (a number assigned by the DoE) - 1618313.
According to this assignment, they are ineligible for promotion or admission to Class 1 in the Senior Wing of the School, which has a distinct School ID - 1618232, as specified by the DoE. One of the petitioners in this case had previously been admitted to Class 1 of the Senior Wing of the School.
The mentioned problem was presented while she was being promoted to Class 2. Writ Petition (Civil) 9810/2024 and related cases, Page 9 of 41. A recurring theme in these petitions is that the parents/guardians of these children, feeling wronged by the aforementioned action of the school, were compelled to submit RTI applications, write letters or representations to the Ministry of Education or DoE, and ultimately lodge their complaints with the National Commission of the Protection of Child Rights.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argue that they were assigned seats in the Economically Weaker Section/Disadvantaged Group category via a computerized lottery organized by the Department of Education. Presently, children are being unfairly deprived of their entitlement to education, a right that is protected by the RTE Act, as well as the Delhi School Education law and its related rules.
Their argument is that this refusal is a distinct violation of their fundamental rights, as enumerated in Articles 14, 15, 21, and 21A of the Constitution of India. The counsel also argues that the rationale for denying admission to these children, which is the fact that the Junior and Senior Wings of Holy Innocents Public School are separate entities with distinct school IDs, is lacks merit and is not true.
The same society supervises both branches of the institution, which operate under the same name, administration, logo, and educational policy. Consequently, they should be regarded as a single entity for the purpose of offering additional education in the EWS/DG category. In addition, the petitioners were not provided with information on the DOE's restrictions on their assignment to the Junior Wing, as well as the need to make a fresh application for admission to Class I in the Senior Wing.
It was further contended by the counsel that such an absence of transparency was violative of the rights of the petitioners and as such to the provisions of equality. In addition, the Senior Wing of the School originally allowed one petitioner to enrol in Class I without raising any objections. However, parents subsequently expressed worry over the use of distinct school identification cards when their child progressed to Class II.
The present objection, which has been delayed, is inconsistent and has to be rectified in order to avoid any bias against the petitioners. The counsel also argues that the petitioners, who are classified as EWS/DG, should not be required to comprehend the internal distinctions or monetary components between the Junior and Senior Wings of the School.
The petitioners have the right to receive continuous and uninterrupted education, and any internal matters should not cause them any difficulties or challenges. Moreover, it was stated that the acts of the respondent’s were in contradiction and with the DOE’s circulars, wherein, it is stated that if there are multiple branches of a school and the same are under one
management, then all of them are to considered as a single entity and it is a mandate for them to follow the same admission procedure for induction of students.
The petitioners are, thereby, suffer due to such an incompliance. It was also emphasized that the such an abrupt end to the senior wing's students education can be lead to a negative impact to the mental health of such students, moreover, they also would lose out on a academic year.
This will establish an enduring perception of inequality and discrimination based on social status, which is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of justice and equality that are enshrined in the constitution.
Another argument made by the petitioners was that as per the constitution, the children between the ages of 6 and 14 are entitled to receive free education form the state and the same is mandatory. The respondents' acts clearly breach this fundamental duty, since they impede the petitioners' education. Ultimately, the counsel cites the legal precedent set in the case of Rameshwar Jha v. Richmond Global School.
Based on this established rule, educational institutions are required to make arrangements for students who have been chosen via the Department of Education's random selection process, unless there are extraordinary circumstances that warrant an exception. Nevertheless, under the current circumstances, there are no exemptions that may be used.
Respondent’s Arguments
Sh. Divyam Nandrajog, the learned counsel for the DOE, argued that the petitioners' children must be admitted to the respondent School in accordance with the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Jha. They were assigned to this school through a computerized draw of lots, irrespective of the discrepancy in their school IDs.
Upon the question of the two different school ids, the counsel had answered that the Junior Wing of Holy Innocents Public School is located in Janakpuri, Delhi, while the Senior Wing is in Vikaspuri, Delhi. Consequently, each wing was assigned a unique school ID. Nonetheless, he added that the Department of Education addressed the disagreements by unifying the two School IDs in this case and providing a single School ID. He further stated that if the court wants, it can pass an order wrt the same.
The counsel representing both the Junior and Senior Wings of Holy Innocents Public School, contended that the Department of Education had assigned two distinct School IDs: 1618313 to the Junior Wing, and 1618232 to the Senior Wing.
Furthermore, he stated that this inconsistency has presented the School with significant challenges in the past two years with respect to the receipt of compensation from the Department of Education for the students enrolled in the Junior Wing.
Furthermore, he noted that the School has consistently requested that the DOE resolve the issue of inconsistent school IDs in relation to the enrolment of students in the EWS/DG category. Nevertheless, the Department of Energy has not yet implemented the necessary measures.
Sh. Sehgal stated that the School is not opposed to the consolidation of the School IDs of the Junior and Senior Wings into a single ID, provided that the DOE takes the necessary steps to provide new identification numbers to the students who were initially issued IDs for the Junior Wing.
Furthermore, he emphasized the need for the DOE to ensure that the proportion of pupils accepted to the Senior Wing under the EWS/DG category does not exceed 25%.
The Court has considered the facts offered, as well as the arguments made by the petitioners', respondent School's, and Department of Education lawyers.
Court’s Analysis
At the onset, the court emphasized that the primary objective of the Right to Education Act was to guarantee that all children aged six to fourteen would receive comprehensive elementary education of adequate and equal standards in a local school.
The Act was founded on the belief that comprehensive education was the sole means of achieving democracy, social justice, and equality. It required all pupils to receive a free and compulsory education, regardless of whether they attended government-supported or private institutions.
The court also stressed the need of allocating places in private, unassisted institutions for students from economically disadvantaged groups and economically weaker parts, which was a crucial element of the RTE Act. Reduce the socioeconomic gap and integrate economically disadvantaged children from the EWS into private institutions to guarantee that the future of the country is determined by a varied and inclusive generation.
This program also provided equitable access to high-quality education for all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status, therefore addressing the potential exclusion of the rich population from educational possibilities owing to budgetary limitations. The objective was to intentionally ensure that every kid, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, had the opportunity to aspire, exert effort, and achieve success.
The government enacted the RTE Act to fulfil the constitutional obligation of ensuring cost-free and compulsory education for every kid. The framework of the Act was designed to elevate the right to education from a mere aspirational goal to a legally binding entitlement for all children in India. The Act demonstrated the nation's dedication to ensuring that all children and their families, regardless of their financial status, have equal access to education.
As to the court's ruling, the petitioner children, who were underage, were allegedly refused admission to the institution in issue. The parents and guardians of the petitioners expressed their dissatisfaction with this verdict via several channels.
These procedures include sending formal requests to the Ministry of Education and the Department of Education DOE, filing applications under the Right to Information Act, and registering complaints with the Public Grievance Monitoring System and the National Consumer Protection Registry. When these attempts were unsuccessful, they were obligated to seek legal assistance as a last resort.
Therefore, it is crucial to first analyse the correspondence and reactions shared between the individuals filing the petition and the governing bodies, such as the DOE and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
On April 9, 2024, the petitioner's parents filed a complaint under case W.P.(C) 10179/2024, citing grievance number 2024032744, with the Public Grievance Monitoring System. The School received a response from the Deputy Director of Education. The school informed the Deputy Director about the challenges it had in obtaining compensation for pupils enrolled in the Junior Wing (School ID 1618313), emphasizing that the financial load was hindering its ability to uphold educational standards.
After speaking with the Deputy Director, the school has decided to move students who were previously enrolled in the Junior Wing including the petitioner to the Economically Weaker Section. Upon their transfer to the Senior Wing, these students will be assigned to the General Category. The institution identification number for them is 1618232.
The grievance of the petitioner was answered by the Deputy Director of Education of the West B zone. The matter at hand is to the transfer of economically weaker section children from the Junior Branch to the Senior Branch of a school. The Deputy Director notified the petitioner that the request for the transfer had been sent to the headquarters for authorization, but it was denied.
The rejection was due to the absence of a defined protocol for moving EWS/DG/CWSN pupils, who were assigned schools via a computerized lottery system, from one school to another with distinct School IDs. As a result, the DoE headquarters rejected the issue.
Unhappy with the responses from the authorities, the parents of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10179/2024 filed a complaint on April 23, 2024, with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights regarding the alleged unlawful termination of their child's education at Holy Innocents Public School.
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights promptly addressed the complaint by sending a notification to the Deputy Director of Education. The notice underscored the paramount importance of ensuring the safety of the impacted children, conducting a comprehensive investigation, and adhering to the necessary protocols. The notice specified the Commission's legal obligation to protect the rights of children and required the filing of an action report within a period of seven working days.
The Action Taken Report, presented by the Deputy Director of Education in response to the notification from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, was of great importance. The report clearly stated the Department of Education's established policy, which forbids the movement of pupils assigned using a computerized lottery system from one school to another.
Therefore, the registration IDs given to the students in this situation cannot be moved from the Junior Wing to the Senior Wing of the School. According to the article, now, these pupils will be placed in government schools located nearby. However, in order to get admission in Class 2, students would be required to submit a new application online specifically for the EWS/DG category.
During the analysis of the petitions, the court discovered significant concerns with the DOE conflicting stances on the subject of school identification numbers for the junior and senior wings of schools that are regulated by the same educational society. The Action Taken Report provided by the DOE to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights revealed contradictory positions one presented in court and another presented to the NCPCR.
At first, the counsel of the DOE, following orders from the Deputy Director of Education (West), said that the DoE had no opposition to assigning a single identity to both the junior and senior wings of the school in question, as they are both administered by the same society. Nevertheless, an alternative stance was presented to the NCPCR, resulting in perplexity and intricacies.
The court identified this discrepancy and acknowledged the substantial challenges it posed for pupils belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections and Disadvantaged Group (DG) classifications. These students had difficulties in getting promoted from the junior to senior wings of the same school due to the Department of Education's decision to provide distinct identification numbers to each wing.
It was further noted that as a result of this division, EWS/DG students, who met the required criteria for advancement, were not granted immediate entrance to the senior wing, unlike their counterparts in the general category who were able to continue their study without interruption.
Upon further hearings, the DOE, represented by their legal representative, ultimately conceded that they would consolidate the distinct school identification numbers of the junior and senior wings. This acknowledgment was made in recognition of the fact that the unique identification numbers were first established since the schools were situated in different places.
The DOE suggested that combining or consolidating the school identification numbers for all schools operated by the same society in Delhi will probably alleviate the current problems experienced by both students and schools.
The court underscored the substantial influence of this circumstance on the EWS/DG pupils, who are already facing a disadvantage. The court emphasized that the pupils, who are entitled to protection under the Right to Education Act, were experiencing financial segregation and discrimination as a result of the dual identity numbers. The court expressed concern that this approach compromised the purpose of the RTE Act, which aims to provide equitable educational opportunity for all children, irrespective of their economic circumstances.
The court further highlighted that the lack of clarity experienced by EWS/DG students, who are concerned about their ability to continue their studies at the same institution after being promoted, has a negative impact on their dignity and perception of fairness. The court emphasized the necessity for immediate settlement of this matter in order to avoid additional damage to the pupils and to guarantee the preservation of their right to uninterrupted education.
The court emphasized that the objective of legislation enacted by Parliament or State legislatures is to ensure that all individuals have the same opportunity to succeed. Nevertheless, the regulations and policies that result from these laws may either facilitate or impede the realization of these objectives.
The court emphasized that the practice of assigning separate school identification numbers to the junior and senior divisions of the same school, which are both administered by the same society, presents a significant challenge. This method causes confusion and undermines the RTE Act's intended purpose.
The court found the rationale for this approach to be ambiguous, particularly in light of the fact that it deprives children of their right to uninterrupted education. The DOE's sole response was that the junior and senior sections could be located in distinct regions. However, the court deemed this rationale to be insufficient, as it impedes the children's educational advancement, necessitating their pursuit of legal action as a remedy.
The court reprimanded the Department of Education for its failure to address this matter, despite its awareness of the detrimental impact it has on students in the Economically Weaker Section/Disadvantaged Group category. The absence of explicit regulations or circulars that guarantee a smooth transition for students from the junior wing to the senior wing, without the need for reapplication or another lottery process, was specifically identified.
The court underscored the importance of a policy that ensures the entitlement of children from the Economically Weaker Section/Disadvantaged Group category to cost-free education until the eighth grade, as prescribed by the Right to Education Act, and until the 12th grade, as defined by the Delhi government's policies.
The court provided guidance to address these concerns by considering the payment system for schools and their obligation to provide free education to children from economically disadvantaged groups. The court acknowledged that the RTE Act was the result of extensive legislation and policy-making that were intended to guarantee equal educational opportunities. However, inequalities persist, which are exacerbated by the Department of Education's practice of assigning distinct identities to the junior and senior wings of schools operated by the same society.
The court ordered the Delhi Department of Education to merge the School Identification Numbers (IDs) for the Junior and Senior Wings of schools operated by the same educational society across Delhi. The completion of this consolidation was required to be done within a period of 8 weeks from the ruling, and the schools were to be informed of these instructions within a week.
Schools affected by the School ID consolidation were allowed to submit official submissions within four weeks after the court's ruling. The DOE is required to respond to these statements within two weeks of their receipt. Furthermore, the DOE was required to provide a compliance report to the court after the 8-week timeframe.
The court stressed the need of a smooth and uninterrupted transition between the Junior and Senior Wings of schools in order to uphold students' dignity and prevent any disturbance to their academic progress. The recognition of the importance of such transitions lies in their ability to avoid the loss of academic time and ensure that students are not subjected to inequities in treatment.
The court recognized the challenges faced by students from the Economically Weaker Section/Disadvantaged Group, including complex procedures, lack of respect, and language barriers throughout the admission process. To resolve these concerns, the court has mandated that every independent approved school in Delhi appoint a specialized Nodal Officer to oversee the admission procedure for economically disadvantaged or socially marginalized students.
This officer was assigned the role of being the main person to communicate with, giving clear orders and assistance. This officer was assigned the position of primary point of contact, providing explicit orders and assistance. Furthermore, schools were required to create and distribute a comprehensive multilingual schedule for admissions, as well as a complete list of required documents, in order to expedite the admission process.
The court had also highlighted the importance and necessity of respecting children from low-income families and ensuring that they have equitable and equal access to educational opportunities. The court went to formally recognize the admissions of the petitioner students, thus, enabling them to continue their education with all the rights and benefits that the RTE Act provides.
The court ended by reiterating that all children, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, should be provided with equal chances and treated with respect in their educational experiences. It emphasized the need of educational institutions adhering to the values of justice and equality, guaranteeing that no kid faces disadvantages based on their socioeconomic circumstances.
